I have, and I have perspective from other industries as well that have priced themselves out of the market. There is more at stake than pilots likes and dislikes. You can draw a line in the sand but be careful what you ask for. Alpa recognizes that - it is called "jacking up the house." Costs must be competitive; no one survives if their competors cost are not in line with theirs.
The article post in this forum referencing regional contract renewal demonstrates that the majors have avoided "tail risks" but that shortsightedness on the part of lift providers has been exposed and it is doubtful that financing will be available for fleet replacement as rj's obsolesce before they are paid for. I do look to the majors to have to pony up for these costs. OR get out of that segment of the business as costs exceed revenues. As I often state - in the end economics (like gravity) wins.

 

Mainline companies used to operate small aircraft. What happened? They found out that it was too expensive to operate small aircraft on thin demand routes at mainline pay/benefits and still make a profit(competition). Instead of losing market share completely, they found a way to reduce total operating costs by subcontracting this flying, which in essence created a C-scale pay but the number of jobs grew. You can have mainline carriers operating small aircraft, but this will reduce the number of total jobs at all levels.

It is not as simple as charging $5 more for a ticket to cover costs.

 

I am unconvinced as well, and I am actually willing to argue that regional carriers are subsidizing the pay/benefits/jobs of mainline carriers. Without regional carriers to serve as exploratory tools to find new mainline markets, slot holders to keep competitive advantages in controlled markets, market share products to go into areas unprofitable or restricted for a large a/c, and keeping total carrier costs low in order to provide financial capital for mainline benefits in general.

Sure there are successful carriers that dont have a regional partner (LCCs) but they operate in very limited capacities (and yes, SWA operates in a limited capacity- leisure travel in Domestic USA). To be a global airline you need a wide variety of products to right size the market and stay competitive.

 

I agree with you, the movement to the DC3 initially, was a move to sell more seats to make pax flying profitable - read losing money on smaller planes. Aircraft size has continued to increase at every turn as legacy carriers needed more and more pax to dilute fixed costs. That trend hit the skids with the intro of the 747 which lost money because there was not enough demand to fill them. The cost of travel continued to drop because the industry became more and more efficient. Of course 15cent fuel in the 90's helped keep costs down. The mega leap in fuel prices have brought this to a head - no gradual rise to make an adjustment to.
So, if anyone here thinks the DC3 should make a comeback to the majors - plz speak up.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. They found out they could subcontract it out to lower cost carriers and pocket the extra money and provide a return on investment for their shareholders. It wasn't too expensive to run it at mainline, it was just cheaper to do it with regionals, which left a higher profit margin for the CEO to show to shareholders... that does NOT change the fact that if regionals went away tomorrow, the flights would still be running, but it would be mainline pilots on the flightdecks.

 

we will have to disagree on this one

 

the question is moot because the admission of one regional into the mix required the others obtain the same. getting back to the pre-regional days may be a pipe dream.

 

the cost per seat mile argument has its merits when discussing frequency on a route. However, if the airplane isn't full CASM doesnt matter. An RJ costs less than any mainline airplane to fly on any route. they are smaller airplanes that in turn burn less fuel and have lower maintenance, insurance and other variable costs (landing fees etc). Now a A320 can divide more of those costs out to a greater number of people but if there arent enough people on the airplane you will lose money. An RJ is designed to make money with smaller loads. The full A320 might bring in more money thus a higher profit margin than a full Crj, but a half full CRJ is going to break even where as a half full airbus is going to be bleeding money. Of course none of this means sh!t if you arent charging enough for the ticket to cover the costs when the airplane is full any ways.

 

Have you read Fate is the Hunter, Flying the Line, or ANY history of airlines in the '30s? (Yes, this is when the DC2 was up-sized to a DC3 kiddies). Load factors averaged 15-50 percent on the 14-seat DC2, and airlines were profitable almost exclusively due to Postal Contracts. Seat capacity was not really an issue at ALL until WWII. And yes, I believe DC3 sized aircraft SHOULD be flown at the Majors; pay levels could easily be compensated for by eliminating redundant CEOs, SOCs, etc.

 

-Exactly. And the problem with CASM as a metric is that it's only half of the puzzle; Flying around a 50/70 seater can sometimes allow you to keep the fares high enough to break even, whereas on that aforementioned A320/737, you're trying to dump off the excess seats at ridiculous low fares, just to get something. RASM is then far diluted, making the situation even worse.